BRIEF FACTS:

• The Applicant-Wife (“the Wife”) and Respondent-Husband (“the Husband”) got married in 2009 and pursued IVF in 2014, creating three embryos using the Husband’s sperm and an ovum donated by the Wife’s sister.
  
  
• The couple divorced in 2017 but later agreed to implant one embryo, resulting in the birth of their child (“RAS”) in 2022.
  
  
• The Wife then sought sole guardianship, custody and control of the child, financial maintenance, the right to control the remaining two frozen embryos and a lump-sum payment for RAS’ maintenance.
  
  
• The Husband did not contest custody of the child but opposed the Wife’s request for control over the embryos.
  
  
• The Wife filed the application in July 2024 due to the Husband’s diminishing involvement in RAS’s life.

THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT (HC)

• Firstly, the HC granted the Wife’s application for control over the remaining embryos but with conditions:-
  
  
  1. The Husband would not be liable for any financial obligations associated with the frozen embryos;
     
     
  2. The Wife is prohibited from seeking financial support from the Husband for any child born from the frozen embryos;
     
     
  3. The Wife’s control over the frozen embryos would be subject to the regulations and standards that the IVF clinic is subject to; and
     
     
  4. Given that the embryos do not possess legal personhood and are at most, potential human beings, the Husband could not be compelled to become a father in the future. Neither the legal system nor the Court has the authority to impose such an obligation on the Husband.

• The HC had rejected the Wife’s application for the lump-sum payment due to the following reasons:-
  
  
  1. As RAS was only three years old, financial needs may change over time as such a lump-sum payment may not adequately account for inflation or unforeseen circumstances;
     
     
  2. It would be a challenge to accurately assess RAS’s financial needs for the remaining years;
     
     
  3. There is a significant risk that the funds might not be managed prudently; and
     
     
  4. A lump-sum payment may place financial strain on the paying parent.
     
     
• The HC then ordered for the Husband to pay RM1,500.00 for RAS’ maintenance with a 10% annual increment, continuing until RAS reaches 18 or completes tertiary education.
  
  
• The Husband was granted supervised visitation for six months (every alternate weekend), followed by unsupervised access afterward.